STANCE, JUSTIFICATION & ANALYSIS

KFC chickens are treated in a very unethical manner, which is clearly proven in
the case. Such unethical treatment has caused PETA great discontentment.
Despite KFC conducting some actions to improve their ethical standards, the
brutal treatment of the chickens still remains. For instance, the electric shocks
and introduction of new genetic strains for chickens to gain more weight.

Adding to this, it is very clear that KFC is uninterested in making more radical
changes. They respond to PETA’s confrontation with only brief general
information and also declare that “they are only a purchaser and do not own
the chicken production facilities where the abuses occur.”

Now the question arises, why is KFC condoning this inhumane treatment of
their chickens? The answer is simple, KFC is only concerned with their profits.
We can use the Market Capitalism Model to portray this.

This model states that the market acts as a buffer between business and
nonmarket forces (such as the PETA). One key assumption in this model is that
it is the role of governments, not businesses, to correct social problems. As
such, company interests are defined narrowly as profitability and efficiency.
We see this profit driven behavior very clearly in the case. KFC is very
calculative when it comes to industry guidelines for poultry welfare, where
corrective action is only taken if the number of dead on arrival chickens,
broken bones and dislocated wings exceed a certain percentage. It is clear they
compromise chicken welfare to avoid higher costs.

Also, even after PETA’s 7 years of boycotting, KFC is unwilling to budge further
since their financial performance has still been growing.
Now, the Countervailing Forces Model is also important as it portrays that
nonmarket forces, such as PETA, also have an impact on businesses, which the
market capitalism model overlooks. This model outlines 4 forces:
environmental catalysts, business, government and the public.

1. One conclusion drawn from this model is that: Business is deeply integrated
into an open society and must respond to many forces, both economic and
noneconomic (PETA). It is not isolated from its social environment, nor is it
always dominant.

This is evident in the case, where PETA seems to have a large influence on
businesses with their protests, which is why KFC finally abided to making
some changes, such as the Animal Welfare Advisory Council, where PETA
recommended people to its Board. Although PETA wasn’t happy with it, and
some members resigned, it still proves that noneconomic forces do have an
influence on business operations.

2. Another conclusion is: Business is a major initiator of change in society

through its interaction with government, its production and marketing
activities and its use of new technologies.

This is true as it applies to KFC. The whole reason why PETA is boycotting KFC is
because they believe that such big corporations have a heavy influence on
society. And, by motivating them to change, people will change as well and
animal cruelty on a whole will be reduced. However, PETA must note that
their approach to influencing this change is dysfunctional, such as the
splattering of fake blood on CEO David Novak. This somewhat contradicts the
social change that they are trying to make.